Alaska Nanooks: 2016-17 Season Thread

[mmf]

<a href="https://mmf.smugmug.com/All-Galleries/Alaska-Nanook-Hockey/201617-Hockey-GIFS/n-wMqVcn/i-LpRvzs2/A"><img src="https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-LpRvzs2/0/XL/i-LpRvzs2-XL.jpg" alt=""></a>

School starts Aug 29th and the strategic pathways options for athletics have just been released, so it’s time for a new season thread.

The University’s strategic pathways recommendations for athletics suck, but we can discuss them in following posts. It’s going to take a lot of effort from the players, coaches, and community to continue to improve or maybe even keep the Nanook program. The only tougher job out there right now may be being a Trump apologist.

Not sure when the all important polls come out, but I expect us to be in one of the bottom two spots. Last year we were only middle of the pack in scoring and have lost over 50% of that scoring. I don’t believe anyone else even comes close to that.
We will have 19 underclassmen, including 12 freshmen. No senior d-men and maybe only three healthy junior d-men. Our goaltending should be solid, but solid may not be good enough to be competitive. We may need extraordinary goaltending.

But as a pre-emptive comment, and following my Trump theme, I would like to emphasize that if we do not win the conference then the other teams obviously cheated.

 

[mmf]

Re: Alaska Nanooks: 2016-17 Season Thread

HERE is link to the strategic pathways options

Although each option has direct consequences and untold unintended consequences and unanswered questions, here is my take on the strategic pathway options for athletics.

<a href="https://mmf.smugmug.com/All-Galleries/Alaska-Nanook-Hockey/201617-Hockey-GIFS/n-wMqVcn/i-f9LMBbL/A"><img src="https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f9LMBbL/0/L/i-f9LMBbL-L.png" alt=""></a>

The report was a bit confusing, but I think this hits the major points. I'm sure you guys will let me know where I'm wrong.

 

[mmf]

Re: Alaska Nanooks: 2016-17 Season Thread

A few quick comments:
1. Unless the BOR eliminates all sports at UAF only, or modifies the consortium model, it seems like UAA will struggle to keep hockey.
2. A GNAC model where UAF adds golf and soccer is a complete and utter joke. We would have to hasten global along rather quickly if that is going to happen
3. If these are the options, then I would have to go with 3(b) first, then 2.

 

[Wolfman]

Re: Alaska Nanooks: 2016-17 Season Thread

A few quick comments:
1. Unless the BOR eliminates all sports at UAF only, or modifies the consortium model, it seems like UAA will struggle to keep hockey.
2. A GNAC model where UAF adds golf and soccer is a complete and utter joke. We would have to hasten global along rather quickly if that is going to happen
3. If these are the options, then I would have to go with 3(b) first, then 2.

I think the Soccer and Golf option is because it is the least expensive and the GNAC offers both. That way, UAF and UAA can keep their minimums to be Division II and pay the least for the sports. I think that is what UA statewide is thinking. Plus, the soccer teams could use the Monroe Catholic Stadium next to UAF for soccer and UAA could use East High School new football stadium for soccer. Both are right there.

 

[mmf]

Re: Alaska Nanooks: 2016-17 Season Thread

I think the Soccer and Golf option is because it is the least expensive and the GNAC offers both. That way, UAF and UAA can keep their minimums to be Division II and pay the least for the sports. I think that is what UA statewide is thinking. Plus, the soccer teams could use the Monroe Catholic Stadium next to UAF for soccer and UAA could use East High School new football stadium for soccer. Both are right there.

I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic (a la Trump), or just being funny. You forgot your emoticons. While I’m aware that every high school and almost every middle school in Anchorage has artificial turf, there is not one artificial turf field in all of Fairbanks. And we do not have a “dome” practice facility like Anchorage. Snow on the golf course is not uncommon from mid Sep through April. Temporary greens are usually in play through mid May. Unless both college soccer and golf seasons are in June & July, we are hosed. Even if you strategically scheduled away matches, there would be no practice or training opportunities.

Not sure what you mean by the Monroe Catholic Stadium next to UAF. Surely you jest. You mean that gravel laden dirt field/snow dump next to the student rec center. The only thing related to the Catholic faith there is that you pray to god that the snow is gone, the broken beer bottles are picked up, the mud is not too deep, and it’s still too cold for the mosquitoes. Praise the Lord.

 

[Jimjamesak]

I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic (a la Trump), or just being funny. You forgot your emoticons. While I’m aware that every high school and almost every middle school in Anchorage has artificial turf, there is not one artificial turf field in all of Fairbanks. And we do not have a “dome” practice facility like Anchorage. Snow on the golf course is not uncommon from mid Sep through April. Temporary greens are usually in play through mid May. Unless both college soccer and golf seasons are in June & July, we are hosed. Even if you strategically scheduled away matches, there would be no practice or training opportunities.

Not sure what you mean by the Monroe Catholic Stadium next to UAF. Surely you jest. You mean that gravel laden dirt field/snow dump next to the student rec center. The only thing related to the Catholic faith there is that you pray to god that the snow is gone, the broken beer bottles are picked up, the mud is not too deep, and it’s still too cold for the mosquitoes. Praise the Lord.

UAA could play college soccer but it'd have to be at the Dome and there'd have to be significant upgrades for locker rooms, seating, and a better scoreboard. College soccer runs Aug/Sept to Late Nov/Early Dec. Not gonna happen outside here.

 

[Wolfman]

I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic (a la Trump), or just being funny. You forgot your emoticons. While I’m aware that every high school and almost every middle school in Anchorage has artificial turf, there is not one artificial turf field in all of Fairbanks. And we do not have a “dome” practice facility like Anchorage. Snow on the golf course is not uncommon from mid Sep through April. Temporary greens are usually in play through mid May. Unless both college soccer and golf seasons are in June & July, we are hosed. Even if you strategically scheduled away matches, there would be no practice or training opportunities.

Not sure what you mean by the Monroe Catholic Stadium next to UAF. Surely you jest. You mean that gravel laden dirt field/snow dump next to the student rec center. The only thing related to the Catholic faith there is that you pray to god that the snow is gone, the broken beer bottles are picked up, the mud is not too deep, and it’s still too cold for the mosquitoes. Praise the Lord.

Sorry I meant the turf fields at the Fairbanks Youth Soccer Association Turf Fields. Games could be played there. Not at MC. Sorry.

 

[mmf]

Re: Alaska Nanooks: 2016-17 Season Thread

Sorry I meant the turf fields at the Fairbanks Youth Soccer Association Turf Fields. Games could be played there. Not at MC. Sorry.

I miss-spoke too. I forgot that FYSA added two artificial turf fields last year, the first two in the interior.

 

[AKSWF]

Re: Alaska Nanooks: 2016-17 Season Thread

Let's all just hope attendance for the both of us picks up immensely. Perhaps that could save our programs?

 

[gfmorris]

Re: Alaska Nanooks: 2016-17 Season Thread

... and maybe for oil to go back to $70/barrel. I'll remember y'all when I fill up my WRX.

I honestly see that Option 1, especially for both schools, is most likely. IF you list it first, it's your leading position and not you worst-case. The point that "[t]he remaining program will have increased costs due to coordination within the conference for visiting teams who were previously able to play at both programs" is pretty ****ing to that idea.

The cons are real — fewer non-Alaska students at the UA universities (geographic diversity matters!), to say nothing of legal liability. Will a one-time write-off work?

Lastly, it seems to me that travel would dictate that UAF be the program cut if only one campus loses its programs.

With Option 2, I can't see how you do the consortium and have hockey be present at both schools. Title IX is most definitely an issue, and I'm willing to bet —*absent numbers — that the hockey programs are the most expensive ones in the department thanks to travel and the baseline cost of the sport. That said, the "brand" concern doesn't fly with me — the only school in the Alabama system that has an identity tied up in their athletics are the Roll Tide crew in Tuscaloosa. You could kill all of athletics at UAH and it wouldn't hurt our brand very much (don't let anyone know that I typed that).

With Option 3, your hockey teams are gone, and that's sad. That's pretty much what Mac Portera had in mind for UAH.

GFM

 

[mmf]

Re: Alaska Nanooks: 2016-17 Season Thread

... and maybe for oil to go back to $70/barrel. I'll remember y'all when I fill up my WRX.

I honestly see that Option 1, especially for both schools, is most likely. IF you list it first, it's your leading position and not you worst-case. The point that "[t]he remaining program will have increased costs due to coordination within the conference for visiting teams who were previously able to play at both programs" is pretty ****ing to that idea.

The cons are real — fewer non-Alaska students at the UA universities (geographic diversity matters!), to say nothing of legal liability. Will a one-time write-off work?

Lastly, it seems to me that travel would dictate that UAF be the program cut if only one campus loses its programs.

With Option 2, I can't see how you do the consortium and have hockey be present at both schools. Title IX is most definitely an issue, and I'm willing to bet —*absent numbers — that the hockey programs are the most expensive ones in the department thanks to travel and the baseline cost of the sport. That said, the "brand" concern doesn't fly with me — the only school in the Alabama system that has an identity tied up in their athletics are the Roll Tide crew in Tuscaloosa. You could kill all of athletics at UAH and it wouldn't hurt our brand very much (don't let anyone know that I typed that).

With Option 3, your hockey teams are gone, and that's sad. That's pretty much what Mac Portera had in mind for UAH.

GFM

I would hope (and think) the options are listed from least likely to most probable. Only options 1(c) and 3(a) eliminates hockey at both schools. Of the options, I hope they go with 3(b).

Option 1, completely cutting sports at one school (a or b) or both schools (c) is draconian.
Option 2, consortium would work, but because of distance, probably does not fly with NCAA.
Option 3(a), offer only GNAC sports, eliminates hockey at both schools. Not realistic for UAF.
Option 3(b), UAA becomes GNAC only and eliminates hockey, UAF stays status quo including hockey.

 

[Jimjamesak]

I would hope (and think) the options are listed from least likely to most probable. Only options 1(c) and 3(a) eliminates hockey at both schools. Of the options, I hope they go with 3(b).

Option 1, completely cutting sports at one school (a or b) or both schools (c) is draconian.
Option 2, consortium would work, but because of distance, probably does not fly with NCAA.
Option 3(a), offer only GNAC sports, eliminates hockey at both schools. Not realistic for UAF.
Option 3(b), UAA becomes GNAC only and eliminates hockey, UAF stays status quo including hockey.

To be frank, I see no reason as to why only Fairbanks would keep hockey in all of this. Costs would be higher, revenue potential is much lower. Community support is good and all but that can erode very quickly.

 

[Wolfman]

Re: Alaska Nanooks: 2016-17 Season Thread

It will probably be both schools lose their hockey teams and both schools become all GNAC.

Did you see the option to buy the Carlson Center for potential revenue? I thought that was an interesting peace.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Alaska Nanooks: 2016-17 Season Thread

I don't understand why UAA athletics would be shut down instead of UAF.
It's cheaper to travel to Anchorage and there's a larger population base to support the programs.

 

[FiveHole12]

Re: Alaska Nanooks: 2016-17 Season Thread

<a href="https://mmf.smugmug.com/All-Galleries/Alaska-Nanook-Hockey/201617-Hockey-GIFS/n-wMqVcn/i-LpRvzs2/A"><img src="https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-LpRvzs2/0/XL/i-LpRvzs2-XL.jpg" alt=""></a>

School starts Aug 29th and the strategic pathways options for athletics have just been released, so it’s time for a new season thread.

The University’s strategic pathways recommendations for athletics suck, but we can discuss them in following posts. It’s going to take a lot of effort from the players, coaches, and community to continue to improve or maybe even keep the Nanook program. The only tougher job out there right now may be being a Trump apologist.

Not sure when the all important polls come out, but I expect us to be in one of the bottom two spots. Last year we were only middle of the pack in scoring and have lost over 50% of that scoring. I don’t believe anyone else even comes close to that.
We will have 19 underclassmen, including 12 freshmen. No senior d-men and maybe only three healthy junior d-men. Our goaltending should be solid, but solid may not be good enough to be competitive. We may need extraordinary goaltending.

But as a pre-emptive comment, and following my Trump theme, I would like to emphasize that if we do not win the conference then the other teams obviously cheated.

At this point, what difference does it make?

 

[BGDrew]

I don't understand why UAA athletics would be shut down instead of UAF.
It's cheaper to travel to Anchorage and there's a larger population base to support the programs.

It's actually cheaper to fly into Fairbanks than it is to Anchorage. At least it is from Detroit.

 

[Wolfman]

Re: Alaska Nanooks: 2016-17 Season Thread

It's actually cheaper to fly into Fairbanks than it is to Anchorage. At least it is from Detroit.

Here is some more news on the situation:

http://www.ktva.com/university-weighs-3-options-for-athletic-budgets-preps-for-deep-cuts-349/

 

[sbkbghockey]

Re: Alaska Nanooks: 2016-17 Season Thread

I don't understand why UAA athletics would be shut down instead of UAF.
It's cheaper to travel to Anchorage and there's a larger population base to support the programs.

I found flights to Anchorage from Seattle for $281.00 vs flights to Fairbanks from Seattle at $308.00... that's a $27.00 difference per ticket. So take 27 x 30 a people travel party x 8 non-AK road trips for UAF in 2016-17, and that's only 6,480 increase in travel costs over UAA.

That isn't too big of a number compared to the millions these athletic programs need to operate, overall it doesn't appear that one of these programs is drastically different for a budget standpoint.

Option 1 seems too drastic, it would save the most money but also make the state of Alaska the only US State without college athletics (in addition US territories of Washington DC and Puerto Rico have college athletics) Option 2 is probably the most likely, it seems to be the most cost saving while also the least catastrophic overall. It keeps the current mix of sports but just fewer options with the sport offerings divided between the two universities. Option 3A doesn't seem to make a lot of sense because it adds sports that the two universities both don't currently offer, adding costs to facility procurement as well as travel to-and-from the lower 48. Option 3B stays closer to status quo so that's likely not going to happen unless massive donor support comes up.

 

[Alaska Hockey]

Re: Alaska Nanooks: 2016-17 Season Thread

It's actually cheaper to fly into Fairbanks than it is to Anchorage. At least it is from Detroit.

That's because _airbanks and Detroit have a lot in common. No body wants to go there.

 

[mmf]

Re: Alaska Nanooks: 2016-17 Season Thread

To be frank, I see no reason as to why only Fairbanks would keep hockey in all of this. Costs would be higher, revenue potential is much lower. Community support is good and all but that can erode very quickly.

If they are serious that UA athletics will receive a 50% cut in state support by 2020 and zero state support by 2025 then they might as well shut it all down now. That’s impossible. I’m not sure GNAC would even allow expansion into other sports if both programs will cease within a couple of years. But to your point, I can see them keeping hockey somewhere for the short term and Fairbanks would probably be an easier place to pull the plug in the not so distant future (see Opt 3b)

Opt 1. I do not see them eliminating all athletics this time around. I could see them discussing eliminating UAF only, but I don’t think they have the balls for that in the initial phase of shutting down athletics.
Opt 2. The whole concept of a consortium is that a student at either campus could make the varsity squad. Schools are typically very short distances from each other. I do not believe this would get NCAA approval.
Opt 3a. I can see them forcing both schools to GNAC only sports, which in effect shuts down UAF because the GNAC options are just not viable in Fairbanks. This is a much more politically acceptable method of shutting down UAF only and still cutting costs at UAA. It would just take a little bit longer.
Opt 3b. I can see them moving UAA to GNAC sports only and leaving UAF status quo for now, and emphasizing the reduced state funding mandates. Fairbanks travel and other costs are higher than Anchorage, but UAF operates a much more bare bones operation than UAA. In a year or two they could say UAF is not meeting agreed upon fund raising efforts and shut us down.


I don't think these are well thought out conspiracies or anything, just how they eventually may play out.
In the end I can see athletics only at UAA as a member of GNAC (no hockey).